District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. .98/2022.
Date of Institution:22.02.2022
Date of Order: 05.07.2023.
Dr. Brahm Dutt Advocate, H. No. 598, Sector-21A, Faridabad – 121001 Mob: 9312833618 email-dr.brahmdutt@yahoo.co.in.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Benfranklin Opticians, Centre For Sight, 5R/5, NIT, Faridabad, Behind Neelam Petol Pump, Faridabad (Haryana) through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Center For Sight through its Chief Executive, Plot No.1, HUDA Market of Sector-16A, beside Hanuman Mandir, Sector-16A, Faridabad – 121001.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Vivek Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 deleted vide order dated 05..07.2023.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 25.12.20218 and 29.12.2018 the complainant had visited the Center For Sight, Plot No.1, HUDA Market, Sector-16A, Faridabad now shifted to (5R/5, NIT Faridabad, Behind Neelam Petrol Pump, Faridabad Haryana) for testing of his eyes. After detailed testing of both eyes of the complainant the eye specialist of Centre For Sight found some problems in the eyes of the complainant and advise slip/prescription providing details for getting spectacles glass, Therefore, the eyesight/vision numbers of eyes of the complainant were informed to him by staff of the opposite party No.1 and he was advised to change his eyeglasses, cost of which was estimated as Rs.2250/-. The amount of Rs.2250/- was, therefore, paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 on 15.01.2019 as per payment receipt of the bill dated 15.01.2019. However, after a few days finding his spectacle glasses unsuitable, the complainant visited another Eye Testing Centre which was situated in NH-V, NIT, Faridabad name Sahiba Opticals, NH-V, NIT, Faridabad. After conducting detailed testing of the complainant’s eyes, “the Sahiba Opticals Eye Testing Centre ref. in para-5 above” found that the eyeglasses provided by Benfranklin Opticians Centre did not match the eye sight vision numbers of the eyes given by Centre For Sight Eye Centre to the complainants, therefore, causing problems to his eyes. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party, to replace his spectacle glasses as per correct sight number but staff of the opposite party point blank, refused to replace the same until payment was once again made by the complainant to Benfranklin Opticians Centre. Therefore, the complainant had to get the spectacle glasses replaced by the eye centre Sahiba Opticals refer in para-5 above. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay Rs.2250/- to the complainant as ref. in para 10 above. Alongwith legal expenses on running around for preparing and filing and for causing mental torture amounting to Rs.15,000/- plus interest thereof @ 15% p.a. within 15 days from the date of the orders of the Hon’ble Commission.
b) interest for the period for which the payment was delayed after the date when the payment was ordered by the Hon’ble Commission, to be paid to the complainant till the same was actually paid @ 15% p.a.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.1 was only dealing in spectacles with appropriate lenses, which were fit to the user in accordance with the prescription & eye test/vision report given to a patient by an Eye Specialist and that the complainant visited the “Center for Sight – a unit of CFS Pharmaand Opticals Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred as “opposite party No.2 which was a distinct unit from the opposite party No.1 and that the opposite party No.1 had no onus or liability or control over the opposite party No.2 and that the opposite party No.1 had no sway to authenticate the vision test report of the complainant prescribed by the “Centre for Sight” a unit of CFS Pharma and optical Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. And that the opposite party No.1 framed and delivered the spectacles with correct lenses in accordance with the eye sight/vision deficiencies prescribed & reported to the complainant by opposite party No.2. The complainant being the senior citizen having the age of 85 years old had firstly visited the “Centre for Sight” a unit of opposite party No 2 on 15.10.2018 to get the eye vision test conducted by opposite party No.2 and provided the under mentioned prescription on 15.10.2018.
First order -ORD/192/16196, dated 15.10.2018 (Power details – cancelled order)
LENS SIDE | SPH | CYL | AXIS | ADD |
Right | 0.00 | -0.50 | 150 | +2.50 |
Left | +0.50 | -0.75 | 100 | +2.50 |
Opposite party No.1 had delivered the spectacles with correct lenses in accordance with the above prescription/vision test report provided by opposite party No.2 and that in pursuant to placement of order dated 15.10.2018, opposite party No.1 had issued an invoice No. 201819/192/11822 dated 18.10.2018 for an amount of Rs.2250/- including the statutory taxes (GST) of Rs.241.08/-. The complainant once again after 2 months 13 days visited the “Centre for Sight” a unit of opposite party No.2 on 25.12.2018 and stated unconformity with the spectacles hence, based on the vision test carried on 29.12.2018 by opposite party No.2 (Centre for Sight), opposite party No.1 had change the lenses of the spectacles under goodwill gesture & following satisfaction policy of the customer without setting any precedence or cost upon the complainant in accordance with the below stated prescription available in the prescription/advisory summary given by opposite party No.2:
LENS SIDE | SPH | CYL | AXIS | ADD |
Right | +0.75 | 0.00 | 0 | +2.25 |
Left | +1.00 | -1.25 | 100 | +2.25 |
Opposite party No.1 had prepared the spectacles with lenses in accordance with prescription summary dated 29.12.2018 and delivered the same on 15.01.2019 without levying any cost/charges to the complainant and that the complainant producing the invoice No. 201819/192/12395 dated 15.01.2019 was an adjustment of amount paid against invoice No. 201819/192/11822 dated 18.10.2018 for a counting only and that after getting the new spectacles on 15.01.2019, the complainant never approached opposite party Nos.1 & 2 with any unconformity with spectacles or lenses and the complainant misleading the Commission with the partial facts about placement of order and delivery of wrong spectacles. There was no defect in the lens with spectacles given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 15.01.2019 and delivered as per the prescription dated 29.12.2018, reproduced hereunder:
LENS SIDE | SPH | CYL | AXIS | ADD |
Right | +0.75 | 0.00 | 0 | +2.25 |
Left | +1.00 | -1.25 | 100 | +2.25 |
And that the complainant never reported or raised any complaint in writing either to opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2 about Lens with spectacles under possession with complainant from 15.01.2019 and that the lenses of the spectacles delivered to the complainant was in adherence with the prescription given by opposite party NO.2 and it might be tested in accordance with section 38(2)© of the act with an appropriate laboratory. The complainant was bound with the terms and conditions stated in the invoice No. 201819/192/11822 dated 18.10.2018 and was eligible for replacement in case of unconformity with spectacles received from opposite party No.1 on 15.01.2019, which at first instance done by opposite party No.1 in goodwill gesture but the complainant never again reported any discrepancies or unconformity in the lenses hereafter even having all the correspondence details available in the invoice itself and that the complainant himself visited any third party and any verbal opinion of any third party could not be relied upon until proven. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 not received back either served or unnerved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2023.
4. The complainant has led evidence in support of his respective version.
5. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Benfranklin Opticians with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.2250/- to the complainant as ref. in para 10 above. Alongwith legal expenses on running around for preparing and filing and for causing mental torture amounting to Rs.15,000/- plus interest thereof @ 15% p.a. within 15 days from the date of the orders of the Hon’ble Commission. b) interest for the period for which the payment was delayed after the date when the payment was ordered by the Hon’ble Commission, to be paid to the complainant till the same was actually paid @ 15% p.a.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A –affidavit of Dr. Braham Dutt, Ex.C-1 & 2 – prescription slip dated 25.12.2018 & 29.12.2018, Ex.C-3 – Tax invoice,Ex.C-4 – sight measurements, Ex.C-6 – legal notice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.R-1 – Certificate,, Ex.R-2 – Tax invoice,, Ex.R3 – prescription dated 25.12.2018 & 29.12.202, Ex.R-4 – Tax invoice.
7. During the course of arguments, Dr. Brahm Dutt, complainant in person has made a statement that “I do not want to proceed the case against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 may kindly be deleted from the array of the opposite parties.
8. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party no.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party No.2 has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.2.
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is a National Award Winner and the complainant being senior citizen having an age of 91 years old and he is also practicing an Advocate. It is not the question of Rs.2250/-, it is a question of deficiency in service..Opposite party No.2 is intentionally avoiding the services. Hence Opposite party No.2 was proceeded. Therefore, the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.2.
10. Opposite party No.2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2250/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 05.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
( Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
